Concord NH – Supporters of the state’s new same sex marriage law in New Hampshire came out victorious over opponents who attempted to repeal the human-rights law this week. The NH legislature voted this week on a bill to amend the state constitution and to redefine marriage back as only between a man and a woman.

Extremist Republicans in the house were sorely disappointed after only a half-hour of debate their bill was defeated, but that doesn’t mean they held back any punches. Virtually every previously-proven-false stereotype about gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people were pulled out in a last-ditch effort by legislators to destroy the state’s new found equality. Rep. John Cebrowski (R) said that, “The vast majority of adults out there know marriage is between man and women. To engage in this flight of imagination … with adults is downright cruel. It’s cruel and I don’t like it.” He also made the comparison of same sex couples getting married as being similar to a child playing Star Wars.

But the mentally-challenged dogma didn’t stop there. Representative Jordan Ulery claimed that, “This is absolutely not an issue of equal rights. This is a question of being open to procreation. This is an issue of natural law,” and Representative Al Baldasaro stated, “Homosexuals can change their sexual preference at any time.”

Fortunately wiser heads prevailed this time. Rep Robert Thompson, an out-and-proud gay man who married his husband under the state’s new law said, “We already have loving, committed same-sex marriage couples in New Hampshire. There has been no detrimental impact to anyone,” adding a personal note by asking his colleagues, “How has my marriage impacted upon your marriage, or how has it diminished the value of your marriage?”

In the end, the homophobic and bigoted bills stood almost no chance and were defeated 210-109.

For more of the craziness of Republicans in New Hampshire watch the video below. “No Disrespect!”

In an update to Sunday’s story about Prop 8 Trial Judge Vaughn Walker being gay, NOM (people from the “storm is coming” commercial) has released a statement that it doesn’t matter he’s gay.. he’s just incredibly biased.

While both official sides in the Prop 8 Trial case are both claiming that they don’t care about the orientation of Judge Walker and that it has not impacted the case, the far right asshats are flying in with their nonsensical rhetoric. NOM (LDS Inc. controlled National Organization for Marriage) released a statement saying, “We have no idea whether the report [of Walker’s orientation] is true or not. But we do know one really big important fact about Judge Walker: He’s been an amazingly biased and one-sided force throughout this trial, far more akin to an activist than a neutral referee. That’s no secret at all”

Queerty has some opinions on that, saying “..this move is true to form for the National Organization for Marriage.. It’s the “smiling bigot” phenomenon, where religious beliefs are slyly substituted for important secular responsibilities like “family and children,” hoping nobody notices. It’s imperative for NOM, and the defendants in Perry, to put distance between their goal (banning gay marriage) and their reasoning for it (it goes against religious teachings), because courts regularly shoot down arguments tied to the cross. And Brown’s statement repeats NOM’s earlier positions: They don’t have anything wrong with gay people, they just don’t want them screwing with their sacred institution.”

Of course these days anything NOM says is almost inconsequential as they’re under federal investigation for their ties to the Mormon Church and their direct and illegal involvement in the passage of Maine’s Anti-Gay Marriage law in 2009.

R.I – Marriage Equality Rhode Island has received pledges from all Democratic and Independant Governor hopefuls that they will support and fight for Gay Marriage.. no word yet from Republican hopefuls of course.

Being the 2nd to last New England state to not allow same-sex unions (Maine), Rhode Island has been pushing hard not to be left out of the human-rights battle. And now Marriage Equality Rhode Island has released that Attorney General Patrick Lynch and General Treasurer Frank Caprio (Democrats), and former Sen. Lincoln Chafee (Independent) have all signed on with support. They are expected to make their own announcements about their pro-LGBT views on March 3rd.

Rhode Island has struggled with this issue, as current Governor Carcieri has been a major opponent of human-rights. However Carcieri has now run out his time and won’t be able to run again.

Today the San Francisco Chronicle outed Prop 8 Trial Judge Walker as gay, which has apparently been known to most insiders in the case – including the defense – but is only now being given media attention.

The chronicle states: The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay. Many gay politicians in San Francisco and lawyers who have had dealings with Walker say the 65-year-old jurist, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1989, has never taken pains to disguise – or advertise – his orientation.

They also don’t believe it will influence how he rules on the case he’s now hearing – whether Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure approved by state voters to ban same-sex marriage, unconstitutionally discriminates against gays and lesbians. “There is nothing about Walker as a judge to indicate that his sexual orientation, other than being an interesting factor, will in any way bias his view,” said Kate Kendell, head of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is supporting the lawsuit to overturn Prop. 8. As evidence, she cites the judge’s conservative – albeit libertarian – reputation, and says, “There wasn’t anyone who thought (overturning Prop. 8) was a cakewalk given his sexual orientation.”

Although the defense is ‘claiming’ that they will not make an issue of this should Judge Walker rule against Prop 8, it is certain the extremist right will – and already is.

Proposition 8 witness David Blankenhorn is continuing to air his opinion that marriage is designed for child-raising, and that it is a natural institution developed through history and culture, not one driven by religion. Blankenhorn rejected the contention that marriage is simply a private adult relationship. “I do not believe that is consistent with the human record,” he said.

Proposition 8 attorney Charles Cooper asked Blankenhorn whether a belief in marriage being solely designed for a union between a man and a woman is the result of “anti-homosexual prejudice.” Blankenhorn insisted there is no evidence of that. “I looked for it, and I can’t find it.”

It is a safe prediction that plaintiffs attorney David Boies has found it and will grill Blankenhorn on the topic during cross-examination.

2 p.m.: Expert says marriage a “socially approved sexual relationship between a man and a woman.”

Proposition 8 attorney Charles Cooper did not wait long to get to the point in his questioning of his witness, David Blankenhorn, who is testifying on the purpose of marriage and the importance of procreation to the institution. “What is marriage?” Cooper asked. “A socially approved sexual relationship between a man and a woman,” Blankenhorn replied.

“What does marriage do?” Cooper continued. “The most important thing it does is regulate affiliation. It establishes who are the child’s legal and social parents,” Blankenhorn said. He then insisted reproduction is a “primary purpose” of marriage.

Plaintiffs attorney David Boies had objected to Blankenhorn being an expert on the subject of marriage and procreation, noting that he has a master’s degree in labor history and has never taught on marriage-related issues. Judge Vaughn Walker ruled against Boies, although he didn’t exactly give Blankenhorn’s qualifications a ringing endorsement. “Were this a jury trial,” the judge said, “the question might be a close one.” Walker is hearing the case without a jury.

1:23 p.m.: Prop 8 witness to talk about importance of procreation to marriage

The Proposition 8 trial is now resuming with testimony from the defense’s second, and perhaps final, witness, David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values. Blankenhorn is being called to the stand to testify on the importance of procreation to the institution of marriage. This is a hotly contested component of the same-sex marriage debate. Supporters of Proposition 8 insist that same-sex marriage would undermine traditional heterosexual marriage and its purpose of procreation. Gay marriage advocates, in short, consider this argument weak both legally and socially, stressing that scores of heterosexual couples marry without having children and that having children is not a prerequisite of marriage.

The subtext is that the plaintiffs insist that Proposition 8 is fueled by bias against gays and lesbians and has not legitimate purpose. Defenders of the law use procreation as one argument that the gay marriage ban does have a purpose that is not discriminatory.

To underscore the importance of the issue to the Proposition 8 legal team, lead defense attorney Charles Cooper is handling the questioning of Blankenhorn.

12:07 p.m.: Judge asks question about judicial intervention

Kenneth Miller, the Proposition 8 defense’s first witness, is done with his testimony. The Claremont McKenna College political science professor spent a full day on the witness stand, arguing that the political might of gays and lesbians is on the upswing. Proposition 8 lawyers put him on the stand to refute the testimony of a plaintiffs expert who maintains that gays and lesbians remain vulnerable in the political process and need greater legal protections.

At the end of Miller’s testimony, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker interjected a few questions related to his role in evaluating the constitutionality of a voter-approved ballot initiative. Miller had mentioned that ballot initiatives were popularized to offset “judicial activism.” The judge asked: “Are you saying it is never appropriate for judges to intervene in the initiative process?” No, Miller replied.

“What I’m trying to tease out is what are the circumstances” for judicial intervention? Walker asked. Miller replied that judges should step in when established constitutional principles are violated by an initiative.

The judge has taken the daily lunch break. Proposition 8 defenders are now expected to call David Blankenhorn, who will testify on the importance of procreation to marriage.

11:41 a.m.: Tense exchange between prof and plaintiffs’ attorney

Plaintiffs attorney David Boies has finished cross-examining Proposition 8 expert witness Kenneth Miller, called to assert that gays and lesbians have gained political clout and conflict plaintiffs experts who’ve characterized gays and lesbians as vulnerable in the political process.

Boies and Miller had a series of tense exchanges, the lawyer impatient with indirect answers and Miller frustrated by attempts to cut off longer explanations. In the end, Boies tried to make the point that powerful religious organizations used Proposition 8 to “impose their will on a religious minority” and deny same-sex couples the right to wed. Miller would only concede that a religious majority should generally not be able to use the law to deprive a minority of rights, steering clear of anything specific to Proposition 8.

Attorney General Jerry Brown’s office made a quick appearance at that point, as Chief Judge Vaughn Walker asked whether a deputy wanted to respond to a claim in Miller’s testimony that the attorney general can act as a check to legal deprivations in the ballot initiative process. Brown, of course, has argued that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, remaining on the sidelines during the trial, even though the state is a defendant. Deputy Attorney General Tamara Pachter asked Miller whether there is any other role in the process for an attorney general other than writing the neutral ballot language; the political-science professor said he was not aware of one.

Walker then asked Miller whether an attorney general “can do more” than just write the ballot language, a question apparently aimed at whether the state’s top lawyer can evaluate a measure’s constitutionality before it goes to the voters. Miller had no information on the topic.

Proposition 8 attorney David Thompson is questioning Miller under redirect.

10:52 a.m.: Cross-examination of prof continues

Plaintiffs attorney David Boies is hammering away at Proposition 8 expert Kenneth Miller on the professor’s assertion yesterday that churches could be counted among the political allies gays and lesbians have in the political process. Miller, a Claremont McKenna College professor, is on the stand to maintain that gays and lesbians are accumulating political power, trying to refute the plaintiffs’ argument that in fact gays and lesbians remain politically powerless and vulnerable to discrimination in the political process as a result. Miller listed a host of political figures and others who go to bat for gay and lesbian rights, and included some of California’s churches in that category.

But Boies has put Miller on the spot when it comes to Proposition 8, citing the fact that the two largest churches in the state, by far (Roman Catholic and evangelical Christians), not only supported a ban on same-sex marriage, but were leading movers in the Proposition 8 campaign. Boies also noted the crucial role of the Mormon church. Overall, Boies asked Miller, didn’t religious organizations support Proposition 8 in a way that dwarfed the role of churches that sided with the No on Proposition 8 campaign? Weren’t religious attitudes “critical” in the push to pass Proposition 8?

Miller tepidly conceded each point, calling religious attitudes a “factor” in the vote. With “caveats,” he also acknowledged that religious groups played a more substantial role in supporting the gay marriage ban.

The cross-examination continues.

9:46 a.m.: Prof’s writing: Initiatives can be used to repeal benefits for minority groups

Kenneth Miller, a Claremont McKenna professor and expert for the Proposition 8 defense, continues to face the cross-examination of plaintiffs attorney David Boies. Boies has been focusing on past writings and research Miller has done on the ballot initiative process, confronting him with some past observations he’s made about the impact of such measures on minority groups. In particular, Miller has written that initiatives can be used to circumvent legislatures to get issues before voters, and that it has been used in various instances to repeal benefits for minority groups.

Proposition 8’s next witness is expected to be David Blankenhorn, who is supposed to testify on the importance of procreation to marriage.

8:47 a.m.: Claremont McKenna professor back on the stand

Kenneth Miller, a Claremont McKenna College professor and the Proposition 8 team’s first witness, will back on the stand. Plaintiffs attorney David Boies is cross-examining Miller, who has testified that gays and lesbians have been gaining political clout.

The 8th day of the Prop. 8 trial is done. William Tam, a leading Prop. 8 proponent, spent an eventful afternoon on the stand. Plaintiffs attorney David Boies finished up by trying to debunk the Prop. 8 legal team’s attempt to portray Tam as a rogue official during the campaign who made harsh remarks about gays and lesbians without the stamp of approval from the Prop. 8 campaign. Boies showed a series of e-mails and other evidence that linked Tam to the campaign and ProtectMarriage.com leaders, and noted that he was directly involved in organizing rallies against same-sex marriage.

The trial resumes Friday with the plaintiffs final witness, UC-Davis psychology professor Greg Herek, who is expected to testify about the nature of homosexuality. Prop. 8 officials say they then have two expert witnesses to put on the stand.

(Read Howard Mintz’s recap of the day’s proceedings in the Proposition 8 trial later today online on this Web site and in tomorrow’s Mercury News, Contra Costa Times, Oakland Tribune, and other Bay Area News Group papers. Return to this Web site for live coverage of the Proposition 8 trial each and every day court is in session).

4:21 p.m.: Prop 8 lawyer depicts proponent William Tam as a renegade

Prop. 8 attorney Nicole Moss moved swiftly through her cross-examination of Prop. 8 proponent William Tam, depicting him as a renegade whose often harsh comments about gays and lesbians were never authorized by the Prop. 8 campaign. It is an attempt to distance any Tam remarks that could be perceived as discriminatory from Prop. 8 and its official backers, ProtectMarriage.com. Plaintiffs lawyer David Boies is about to resume questioning Tam. Surely, he will try to glue Tam back to Prop. 8’s campaign.

Plaintiffs attorney David Boies has finished with William Tam, one of the Prop. 8 proponents, and he is now under cross-examination by Prop. 8 attorney Nicole Moss (although Tam is on the Prop. 8 side, it is cross, as he was called by the plaintiffs).

It appears that Tam is getting nudged under the bus a bit by the Prop. 8 team. Boies asked Tam about a variety of inflammatory statements he made about gay marriage during the Prop. 8 campaign, and Moss is now pressing Tam on whether he followed internal guidelines within the campaign to get any messages cleared by the Prop. 8 campaign manager. This was part of “message discipline” guidelines for the campaign’s officials. Asked by Moss whether he got his messages pre-approved, Tam said he did not.

The thrust of the questioning appears to be that Prop. 8 backers believe Tam went rogue during the campaign.Lawyers for same-sex couples are trying to use Tam to show that Prop. 8 was fueled by discrimination against gays and lesbians.

William Tam, the Prop. 8 proponent still on the witness stand, has supplied the day’s sound bite describing his views of same-sex marriage. As plaintiffs attorney David Boies asked him about likening gay marriage to polygamy, incest and other illegal relationships, Tam said:

“I believe if the term marriage can be used beyond one man, one woman, then any two persons of any age, of any relationship, can use the same argument to come and ask for the term marriage. That would lead to incest. That would lead to polygamy. If this is a civil right, what would prevent other groups form asking for the same right.”

Tam uses the phrase “moral decay” to describe allowing gay marriage.

Tam’s testimony is a component of the plaintiffs attempt to show that Prop. 8 was fueled by hostility against gays and lesbians that renders the law discriminatory and a violation of their federal equal protection rights

2:41 p.m.: Prop 8 proponent grilled on views about homosexuality

Here we go. Plaintifs attorney David Boies is baring his Bush v. Gore fangs on William Tam, a leading proponent of Prop. 8 and ardent foe of same-sex marriage. He’s confronted Tam on his advocacy of Prop. 8 during the campaign, when he said allowing gay marriage would lead to legalizing prostitution as well as legalizing sex with children. Boies pointed to a position from Prop. 8 supporters that gays were 12 times more likely to molest children, a fact Tam said he believes.

Where’d you learn that? Boies asked. I don’t recall, Tam replied.

“I’m asking you what you read?” Boies asked, voice rising, wanting to know how that could be put out to support Prop. 8.

Boies continued to press on messages from gay marriage opponents that Tam endorsed, including the fact that San Francisco government was “run by homosexuals.” How could that be, the mayor isn’t homosexual, is he? Boies asked. Tam agreed. Boies asked why he pushed Prop. 8 by saying same-sex marriage would result in legalizing prostitution. “That didn’t have anything to do with Proposition 8, did it sir?” Boies asked.

“Right,” Tam said.

Boies also confronted Tam with e-mails in which he said California would fall into the “hands of Satan” if gay marriage were permitted. The questioning continues.

William Tam, a leading Prop. 8 proponent from San Francisco, has just outlined his primary reasons for supporting a ban on same-sex marriage, under questioning from plaintiffs attorney David Boies. “It is very important for the next generation to understand the historical meaning of marriage,” he said. “It is very important our children won’t grow up to fantasize or think about “should I marry Jane or John when I grow up.—

Tam said these principles are important to the Asian community, which he tried to mobilize in favor of Prop. 8.

Responding to Boies, Tam said he supported domestic partner rights for gays and lesbians, as well as protections in employment and housing. He said he had not “come to conclusion” about whether they should be permitted to adopt children. He did, however, support the message on a Web site that linked homosexuality to pedophilia.

At the same time, asked whether he considers himself “hostile to gays and lesbians,” Tam replied: “No, I don’t.”

1:40 p.m.: Prop. 8 proponent William Tam begins testimony

Proposition 8 proponent William Tam is on the witness stand, being questioned by plaintiffs attorney David Boies. Boies is starting slowly with Tam, going through how he got enlisted in the campaign to outlaw same-sex marriage in California. Tam’s lawyer has objected to any questions related to Tam’s political views or motivation for pushing Proposition 8, but it is clear Chief Judge Vaughn Walker will consider such questions fair game.

Tam’s testimony is a key ingredient in the plaintiffs’ effort to show that hostility and animus toward gays and lesbians fueled the passage of Proposition 8. Defenders say it was designed to preserve traditional marriage, not as a form of bias against gays and lesbians.

1:22 p.m.: Leading Prop. 8 proponent to take stand

The trial has resumed with William Tam, a leading Proposition 8 proponent, preparing to take the stand. His lawyer is currently asking Judge Vaughn Walker about Tam’s request to withdraw as a named intervenor in defense of Proposition 8 (Tam asked to withdraw because of what he considers the burden of the litigation and threats to his family.) Walker appears reluctant to let him out.

It is unlikely to have an impact on his testimony; he’s been subpoenaed either way.

12:13 p.m.: Lunch break, then Prop. 8 proponent will be on hot seat

Buckle your seat belts, Proposition 8 trial watchers. William Tam, a controversial proponent behind the ban on same-sex marriage, is ready to take the stand, setting up a chance for gay-marriage advocates to go toe to toe with a leading Proposition 8 backer who will be under oath in a federal courtroom.

Tam asked Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker to let him out of the legal challenge as a named defendant, worried about threats to his family and himself from gay rights advocates. Now, Tam will be in the hot seat. Among other things, he has said gay marriage would lead to “legalizing having sex with children,” and encourage children to embrace a homosexual lifestyle. He also said same-sex marriage is the work of Satan.

But first, lunch. Walker has taken the daily break.

Stanford law Professor Gary Segura finished up a full day of testimony, reiterating his central point, that gays and lesbians are bereft of true political power and are as vulnerable as any minority group to ever encounter discrimination.

Proposition 8 lawyer David Thompson has finished his cross-examination of Stanford professor and plaintiffs expert Gary Segura, although, it would appear, reluctantly. After spending all afternoon Wednesday and through this morning in his questioning, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker indicated he’d given Thompson more than enough time to make his point with Segura, who is on the stand to outline the vulnerability of gays and lesbians in the American political process. Indeed, when Thompson was prepared to keep going, the judge interceded, saying the length of his examination was “at the edge of the pale.” (Not beyond, mind you, at the edge).

Thompson asked one more question and retreated to the defense table. Plaintiffs attorney Theodore Boutrous Jr. is now requestioning Segura, trying to counteract Thompson’s line of attack on the issue of gay and lesbian boycotts, protests and incidents of confronting Proposition 8 supporters. Segura, likening it to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, said such incidents aren’t always positive, but added, “I don’t think that’s indictment of the entire group.”

10:46 a.m.: Bill O’Reilly makes cameo appearance via video clip

Familiar faces in the national debate over same-sex marriage continue to make cameos in the Proposition 8 trial. This time, it was Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly, shown in a video clip of one of his shows during the Proposition 8 campaign. Proposition 8 attorney David Thompson introduced the clip of an interview with a young woman who said she was attacked in San Francisco’s Castro District during a demonstration before the election, supposedly hit over the head by a “gay activist” with a bible and assaulted. Thompson was using the clip as part of his effort in cross-examining plaintiffs expert Gary Segura to show incidents of unruly and violent outbursts by gays and lesbians against supporters of Proposition 8. The Stanford professor has been testifying for nearly a full day on what he considers the political vulnerability of gays and lesbians.

Judge Vaughn Walker did ask Segura whether he’d explored any political fallout against African-Americans as a result of riots and demonstrations during the 1960s civil rights movement. It wasn’t entirely clear where the judge was going with that one.

When Segura is done testifying, the trial will shift into full confrontation mode with the testimony of William Tam, a controversial leader in the Proposition 8 campaign.

Chief Judge Vaughn Walker just took a brief break in the Proposition 8 trial, in part to swear in two lawyers to the federal bar. Stanford Professor Gary Segura remains under cross-examination, and will be stuck there for another hour. (Proposition 8 lawyer David Thompson told the judge he was moving slower than he anticipated, to which the judge replied: Yes, you are.) Thompson has introduced information about several incidents of vandalism or physical attacks on Proposition 8 supporters during the campaign, trying to get Segura to admit they undercut gay and lesbian political power. Segura has acknowledged such incidents never look good for any side, but downplays their importance in the larger picture of gay and lesbian political clout (or lack of it).

9:23 a.m.: Prop. 8 lawyer: Religious belief spurred voter attitudes

Stanford University political-science Professor Gary Segura has been back under cross-examination by Proposition 8 lawyer David Thompson, who is probing the plaintiffs’ expert on the religious motivations behind voters approving California’s ban on same-sex marriage. At one point, when Thompson noted that religious beliefs spurred voter attitudes, Segura quipped: “Mr. Thompson, have you switched sides? That is correct.”

Segura has been testifying for nearly a day on the political “powerlessness” of gays and lesbians that leaves them vulnerable and in need of greater federal constitutional protection, an important ingredient in the attempt to invalidate Proposition 8. Proposition 8 supporters insist voters support a gay marriage ban to protect traditional heterosexual marriage, not out of hatred and bias against gays and lesbians.

The plaintiffs have two witnesses left today and tomorrow. One is William Tam, a controversial Proposition 8 proponent, and the other is Greg Herek, a University of California-Davis psychology professor who will testify on mental health research on gays and lesbians and the impact of denying them the right to marry.

8:25 a.m.: Cross-examination of Stanford prof about to resume

The Proposition 8 trial will resume at 8:30 a.m. Stanford University Professor Gary Segura will be back on the stand under cross-examination by Proposition 8 lawyers. Segura has been testifying that gays and lesbians don’t have meaningful political power. Proposition 8 lawyers indicated late Wednesday that they plan to cross-examine Segura for about 90 minutes more.

In an explosive afternoon in California, internal memos within the LDS (Mormon) Church have been introduced!

Even after Pro-8 counsel fought furiously to keep them hidden, documents from within the LDS/Mormon hierarchy were ruled as valid by Judge Walker today. The first was an email describing the Prop 8 Campaign as “entirely under direction of the priesthood.” As the email was read it covered incredible details, such as the fact that the Mormon church had a “key-leader in every zip code in California,” organizing the efforts of pro-8. The document also describes plan for grassroots organizing based on church wards led by ward priests. Apparently, the LDS church had an average of 20,000 volunteers walking neighborhoods at any given time.

The 2nd document is a record of the minutes in a meeting of the LDS officials. It details that Mormons were “not to take the lead, but to work within the coalition” in order to minimize negative impact on the church. In other-words, the documents make it clear that 2 way flow of info between the campaign and the church was regular, but church pretended to lay low. The LDS church pushed for the campaign to provide the talking points, and it would provide the volunteers.

With the documents, we now know that Prop 8 was primarily coordinated between the Catholic Church, the Mormons and Focus on the Family. Expert witnesses describe this kind of coordination as “unprecedented” in the taking away of civil liberties of citizens.

The documents were found by “8: The Mormon Proposition” director Reed Cowan.

RSS Feed

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 47 other followers

Eric Ethington

"Eric, trying to have this conversation (lgbt rights) with you is ultimately like trying to teach a pig to dance, it just annoys the pig. So Eric, sorry to annoy you."
-Paul Mero, The Sutherland Institute.